Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Savell on Savile.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on April 29, 2015

Detective Superintendent Jon Savell has finally spoken, albeit briefly. After 3 years of investigation into the allegations regarding Jimmy Savile at Duncroft, it amounts to 17 pages. 17 pages that are notable as much for what they don’t say as for what they do.

Operation Yewtree recorded 11 ‘accounts of crimes’ said to have been committed by Savile at Duncroft. 5 of which were reported to have happened in the years 1970 – 1973.

Operation Outreach has now conclusively decided that Savile didn’t set foot in Duncroft before the 21st January 1974.

We now have incontrovertible proof that Bebe Roberts, or Beryl Shaw as she was then, was lying – along with four other girls…

Five false allegators; who-da-thunk-it?

We also have incontrovertible proof that Susan was telling the truth in her account of introducing Savile to her life at Duncroft. I never doubted her, and applaud her courage in standing up to the wave of hysterical allegations that sought to silence her.

What more do we know? Difficult to evaluate, since Surrey Police have not chosen to impartially investigate these allegations, but rather acted as judge and jury and taken them a ‘true’:

Operation Outreach has taken the same approach, to the joint NSPCC and Metropolitan Police report, Giving Victims a Voice published in January 2013. Operation Outreach does not regard accounts provided by Duncroft victims as unproven allegations, and as such they are referred to throughout this report as ‘victims’ rather than ‘complainants’.

Further, they have expanded, during the intense media coverage, the original 6 allegations which could have occurred during the proven timeline, to 46 using some nifty footwork which will be greatly appreciated by a media keen to publicise scandal. First they took the 22 allegations they now had, and turned them into:

Operation Outreach confirmed that at least twenty-two pupils and one visitor were victims of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile at Duncroft.

Then they added up the number of times allegations had been made that Savile had engaged in:

Of these ’46 offences’ – two were offences contrary to Section 4(1) Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and Thirty-eight offences contrary to Section 3(1) Sexual assault – and that is only if they were able to be charged under the current 2003 Act.

At the time, i.e 1974, all 46 ‘offences’ would have come under the heading of Section 14(1) Indecent assault on a woman – as could kissing your Aunty Marge without first getting her permission…

– and these are ‘offences’ that have never been investigated…because ‘nobody ever lies about sexual abuse’ – except the five that reported being abused at Duncroft years before Savile set foot in the place…but we’re hoping you won’t notice that…

Something else of interest. Much was made in the Exposure programme of a victim being ‘dragged screaming’ to a padded cell after trying to report being abused by Savile.

The ‘very secure room’ is what pupils sometimes refer to as the ‘padded room’. It is clear from Duncroft documents that all the rooms were built for ‘security and safety’ whilst aiming to also be ‘pleasing and domestic’. The security aspect meant built-in furniture, non-glass mirrors, and limitation of edges, ledges, hanging rails, hooks, pipes, and consideration about the weight and nature of every moveable object in the unit. The documents also specify a ‘separate single suite of room and lavatory, all with total security and safety’. In a manager’s report from May 1978 there is reference to a ‘padded secure room’. From the documents it can be seen that this was simply a single room with extra safety precautions including some ‘padding’ where necessary.

In practice, pupils would most often be admitted to the ICU on ‘return from absconsion’. This could be due to them being under the influence of drugs, or having self-harmed whilst away, or simply in a distressed state. ‘The unit was designed and set up at a time when a lot of girls were referred who were serious drug-takers and who needed at times a quasi-hospital type care – hence the unit look and feels more like a sick bay or isolation unit’. The report goes on to discuss how the need for the unit had almost entirely disappeared, with the secure room being used so little that it was obsolete.

There is no discussion of the events said to have taken place at the BBC:

Offences of abuse against Duncroft pupils that occurred on BBC premises do not form part of this report.

‘That occurred‘ eh?

No discussion of how Savile came to visit Duncroft, no attempt to discern whether there was any truth in the allegations – merely a trawl for more allegations undertaken that was so comprehensive they even managed to track down seven pupils that Barnardos didn’t realise they had…

Barnardo’s supplied Operation Outreach with details of pupils and staff present during the years 1974-1979 inclusive. In the course of the investigation some pupils were identified as having been resident during the relevant time frame but were not present in the pupil list. In total seven pupils were identified in this way.

All in all, 17 pages that only inform by omission – but give the media the headlines they crave. Precisely as the NHS reports did.

Those of us who have waited three years to know the truth, are none the wiser. It may come as a shock to others to realise that almost 50% of the original Yewtree allegations, were, as we have always said, false. Lies, plain and simple.

“We know that Jimmy Savile visited Duncroft on two or three occasions during the three years Barnardo’s managed the school. Six former pupils told the investigation that they were sexually assaulted by Savile over this period.”

Every now and again someone says to me, “Well, if even just ONE of these things happened, he was an evil bastard…” I’m getting so that I feel like I’d settle for one as well… Lord knows what the adminstrators of his Estate feel like, who have seen £3M swallowed by this state-sponsored corruption.

Well, with these numbers it mare a question of rates than percentages. The raw numbers would give us 1.375 victims per visit, or 2.875 offences per visit, and 2.09 offences per victim.

The above is on the basis of only 16 visits. I don’t really buy the idea that it’s “at least sixteen times,” as it seems highly unlikely that a visit wouldn’t be recorded. Even so, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt (Heavy irony!), and round the visits up to 20.

There’s no obvious accounting for the length of time of visits, other than him having been recorded as staying overnight twice, or possibly “more frequently” but not recorded as such. Let’s say at a maximum he stayed overnight four more times unrecorded, i.e. six in total. We can assume an overnight stay would be at least 12 hours, up to a maximum of 24 if he arrived at 08:00 one day, and left at 20:00 the following. We’ll split the difference at 18 hours for each of the maximum six overnight stays. That’s 108 hours.

For the non-overnight stays, let’s assume a minimum of one hour to a maximum of 12 (say, 08:00 to 20:00). Again we can split the difference at 6½ hours. For the remaining 14 visits, that’s 91 hours, giving 190 in total.

In other words, one “new” victim every 8 hours 38 minutes and 11 second, and one offence every 4 hours and 7 minutes and 50 seconds.

And that’s taking a mid-range, of course. Assuming a minimum of 16 visits, two overnight at 12 hours each, and fourteen at one hour each, would give only 38 hours. The absolute upper limit would be 20 visits, six overnight at 24 hours each, and fourteen at 12 hours each, giving 312 hours maximum. Even the latter would still involve one “new” victim every 14 hours 11 minutes, and one offence ever 6 hours 47 minutes!

And he carried with him at all times a special tracksuit, emblazoned with a big SUPER ABUSER logo; at the sight of a victim, he would leap into the nearest Roll-Royce and swiftly don it, leaping out upon the hapless child with renewed vigour and evil…. Well, it’s about as likely a scenario as most of the allegations!

It’s a remarkable thing. Jimmy actually staying overnight at a girl’s home. Imagine someone even suggesting it today !. Just requesting to would probably see you in a police cell. I am more and more coming to the belief that Savile was so aware of his ‘image’ which really was his source of income that I just cannot see him breaking the law in any form or manner as it would be, without the slightest doubt given the UK’s Fleet Street ability to destroy, the kiss of death to his career. I can also see that he seemed to adore making money for whatever reason. It obviously made his life easy, Rollers etc , but he does appear to also have had other reasons. Charity was obviously so much a part of his character. I also think he was certainly a product of his era in that Carry On manner- you could joke and carry on about sex but you waited until the lady in question was legal. Didn’t he always hint at this?

Right. We have a number of complainants whose allegations can be nothing but falsehoods. Sooo, how does DS Savells team justify Yewtrees operational budget? Simples, by charging all the known false complainants with ‘Wasting Police time’ or ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’. This of course would entail charging one self described ex detective and ‘documentary maker’ (Cough, cough) with several counts.

So that’s five actual prosecutions arising, plus a few more. From a purely numbers perspective it’s a win-win. Job done, careers saved and time for tea and medals. Oh and the media get to ‘report’ the charges as part of the Savile investigation with their usual frothing hysteria (Without mentioning that JS wasn’t the one found with a case to answer – natch). Got to sell that advertising space. What fun.

Almost every so-called ‘Inquiry’ from the past has shown to be a sham and it often takes 2 or 3 Inquiries to uncover the truth. I can almost see that in 10 years when the coffers have run dry and numerous scandals have erupted whereby scamsters have obtained compensation that there will be a new inquiry into the late Sir James Savile, Operation Yewtree etc.

It seems to me that Savile’s method of avoiding prosecution – as alleged by his accusers – is what might keep the wolves from MWT’s door for a while yet. Savile, we are told, surrounded & ingratiated himself with powerful pillars of the Establishment; police, politicians, institutions. Because of these relationships he was all but untouchable, as to bring him down would have had repercussions too for those propping him up.

Those responsible for propagating the current lunacy have already gathered around them the self same protective force-field of police, politicians & institutions. And they’ve added another – the media. Savile had to rely on his legal representatives to fend off the Fleet Street scavengers. In the present case it’s the media who worked hand-in-glove with the aforementioned groups for the wilful dissemination of lies; they are unlikely to willingly expose their own role in hoodwinking a nation. And the legal eagles/vultures have switched sides completely.

The charity rescued from the brink of bankruptcy, in there from the start; the police with their “found” ‘shady book’ of “unknown provenence” linking Savile to Duncroft way before 1974 & their “lost” diaries of Savile which no doubt would have told a very different story; the resurgent careers of dodgy journos with their suddenly-remembered tales of knowledge, dossiers & d-notices; the lawyers given freedom to plunder the bank-accounts of national institutions with the same ease as those of the recently dead’n’wealthy; the political maneuvering which has brought about inquiries into events with which Savile just had to have some connection (Savile mixed-up with Elm, Exaro say so!)… etc.

Only a couple of weeks ago I was reading an article in The Guardian ostensibly about Janner, although they couldn’t resist dragging Savile into it with the following:

“The revelations of the sheer scale of individual failures and institutional blindness verging on wilful ignorance, which allowed Jimmy Savile to abuse hundreds of children…”

Hundreds of children. It’s there in black & white – it must be true! Wilful ignorance? Not ‘arf! Some brave nettle-graspers are needed in the media, but given the extent of the “cover up” I doubt they’d be given a chance to speak.

And the terrible irony that all the “Truth-Tellers” from Icke down are up to their armpits in an Establishment Cover-up makes it the perfect game. Nothing succeeds like a lie promoted by the unwillingness to admit you were wrong, wrong, wrong. That so many behind all of this claim “God” and “Right is on their side” only makes it more laughably idiotic.

C.S. Lewis, another top contender for having had the greatest impact for Christ in the twentieth century, called pride “the great sin.” Every believer should read his chapter by that title in Mere Christianity. There Lewis said,

According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere flea bites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind… it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began.

If this sounds like exaggeration, it will help us to know that Lewis is not simply giving us his private opinion but summarizing the thinking of great saints through the ages. Augustine and Aquinas both taught that pride was the root of sin. Likewise Calvin, Luther, and many others. Make no mistake about it: pride is the great sin. It is the devil’s most effective and destructive tool.http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/Pride_and_Humility_SinglePage

Moor, I just read that today is ‘National Honesty Day’ – what better moment for ‘fessing up to past mistakes?!?

I certainly was guilty of believing much of what I read in the press about Savile, in large part because I came across no dissenting voices at that time; the seemingly across-the-board acceptance of his ‘crimes’ swept me along with it. Fortunately I was a mere casual observer at that time – I don’t think I added anything to the bubbling cauldron of insane nuttiness by opining anywhere.

Now, not only do I NOT believe the official line on Savile (as dished up by the press), nor do I blindly believe ANYTHING else of what they say about anything else; they have proven themselves unworthy of my trust. Those without time to delve deeper can, I think, be forgiven for accepting what they have been brow-beaten into believing by the media onslaught. But those so-called ‘truth-seekers’ look pretty silly at best, and at worst complicit in the fraud itself.

So, the pre-1974 accusations which featured heavily in the ITV “Exposure” programme that kicked this whole farrago off, on Operation Yewtree’s very attractive multi-coloured bar chart and have been trumpeted as evidence of Jimmy Savile’s role as Chief Nonce by all and sundry have been air-brushed out of history in true Stalinist fashion ! No mention of this interesting revelation by Mark Williams Thomas on his voluminous Twitter feed despite the police’s own report blowing a huge hole in his “enquiry” and the veracity of his witnesses/victims/survivors (delete as applicable) who were claiming they were in the clutches of the dastardly Savile in the late 60s and early 70s which have now proved to be totally untrue …

The Daily Mail which featured the famous 1966 allegation, has published a full length article today without ever mentioning or even blushing regarding their previous article – even though they attached the same snatched picture of the 90 year old Ms Jones that first featured in the previous article – to todays effort!!!

Obviously all the stories that the media have written about Lord Janner have led them to develop sympathetic Alzheimer’s as they don’t seem to be able what they previously wrote about the Duncroft allegations …

When I heard this today I just despair, I think it’s too late now for the truth to come out. I would be relieved if there was even just one or two genuine provan cases rather than as it looks the entire scandal was conjured up by a few greedy or publicity hungry liars aided by unscrupulous lawyers. My sympathy is with his family and the charities. I also heard on the radio that many of the Duncroft girls had learning difficulties! The opposite of your description and not something I have heard before.

It seems that we’re expected to believe that the girls claiming victim status were both vulnerable and thus “groomable” at the time, yet in retrospect utterly truthful and reliable witnesses. I suspect that the bit in the report highlighted by Madam Raccoon claiming some girls as “serious drug-takers” is part of that process.

It was on the radio report this morning among other fantastic claims that no doubt will be in all the papers tomorrow. I would have thought from your description that learning difficulties was the last thing they had!

Yes, I heard that as well, from the BBC; I thought I’d misheard! I think that Anna has said that Duncroft was a school for girls with high IQs who needed a broader education than they could get in the usual type of school – so I can just about see how that could be twisted into “learning difficulties”. But it’s still hugely misleading! I wonder if it was deliberate, or just extremely careless journalism?

Will this tax payer funded nonsense ever cease? I fear not. Outrageous, and outrageously depressing for those of us with our senses and values still intact.

I spoke with one of that most endangered of all species just yesterday, a “Former Radio 1 DJ”, who spoke of the malicious ‘black propaganda campaign’ that was undertaken by incoming controller Matthew Bannister’s team in 1993 employed – it meant that the likes of Dave Lee Travis, Simon Bates, Adrian Juste, Gary Davies and Bruno Brookes were not just swept away with a ‘new broom’ but there was a concerted attempt to ruin their professional repuatations (painting them as naff dinosaurs etc) as to make them unemployable as high profile DJs and ‘toxic’ as far as the BBC were concerned.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWbZTOhoMZw Similar techniques were carried forward with Savile/Yewtree – and there’s much the same kind of people engineering it.

I find it hard to believe that Detective Superintendent Jon Savell would have been given this task if his surname had been something other than Savell. I mean come on Savile and Savell, you couldn’t make this shit up, could you? As for the MSM, they don’t want the facts to get in the way of one of the biggest news stories to hit the headlines for years. It’s the old chestnut of “Dog Bites Man” is not a story, but “Man Bites Dog” is. Not many people want to read a story with the headline “Savile Was Not A Nonce” do they?

There will be a whole generation who believe that they grew up in a world where evil old DJ’s and other celebrities were engaging in sex with children – by children of course I’m talking MSM bollocks and am refering to the over 15’s – every hour of every day.

Or relentless invention of imaginary crimes and false allegations which can sometimes (when the police can be bothered) be mistaken for wasting police time or perfecting the course of justice – any comment on the pre 1974 “crimes” which even the police now seem to admit never happened ?

I didn’t quote/misquote you, I rephrased what you said in order to make explicit what you were obviously suggesting. What was the purpose of your reference to “kissing your Aunty Marge without first getting her permission” if it wasn’t to diminish the seriousness of offences under Section 14(1)?

A kiss wihout permission can come under section 14(1). But, to use your own expression, as you very well know the abusive offences cited in para 9.10 of the Outreach report were more than “non-consensual kissing,”, they were “touching of breasts over clothing, touching of breasts under clothing, vaginal touching, vaginal penetration with hand, forced masturbation, forced oral sex, and other sexual touching”.

What you said was, “At the time, i.e 1974, all 46 ‘offences’ would have come under the heading of Section 14(1) Indecent assault on a woman – as could kissing your Aunty Marge without first getting her permission…”. Fine, a kiss without permission may come under Section 14(1), but why bother to mention that simple fact unless you were intending to draw attention to the least serious of 46 offences including fairly significant acts of abuse?

You’re being disingenuous and it doesn’t enhance the credibility of your efforts to sanitise Savile.

I have no wish to sanitise Savile. I have never met the man, nor hold any particular views on him. I do wish to see absolute truth in these matters since they are being used to change the law in ways which are dangerous to everyone. Savile is being used as an emotional ‘cosh’ to desensitise us all to accept that a mere allegation is sufficient to imprison someone. If we accept that as ‘reasonable’ for such an emotive subject as child abuse, then why not terrorism, and if we then accept it for terrorism then why not any other claim? The original allegations on which Savile was ‘set on fire’ for want of a better phrase were simply untrue. If they were untrue, it doesn’t make the rest of them untrue – it does make them worthy of serious scrutiny. You simply cannot have a situation where you say #Ibelieveher automatically, then ‘oh whoops, well maybe not that one now you’ve learnt enough to prove it untrue, but #Ibelieve all the others….’ Savile is a red herring, a cartoon character that has been cast as the pantomime villain. You mistake my interest in ensuring that a centuries old concept of ‘innocent ’til proven guilty’ is some sort of personal crusade in aid of a man I never met. It could have been in aid of you, had you been cast as that villain without valid tested evidence – and it would have been. I’ve been using this blog to defend people wrongly accused without evidence for a lot longer than the Savile story has been around you know, and I was very reluctant to get involved in the Savile story simply because I did have a personal involvement. Perhaps you haven’t been reading the blog long enough to realise that. Try reading back some of the Graham Mitchell story, or Nick Hogan, or Stephen Neary…it’s not Savile that is my interest but the law.

I’ve never been moved to leave comments on your blog until now. But I feel I must take the trouble to thank you for such a beautifully simple summary of why all of this matters – why truth matters. So…thank you!

It’s not even THAT simple. Accidents will happen. Mistakes will be made. The really troubling thing about all this is not that Savile was falsely accused, it is that despite it being painfully obvious he was “fitted up”, the civic and legal establishment of England is totally determined that THEY will be proved right and is spending millions of tax pounds on an increasingly fatuous paper trail to persuade themselves of their due diligence. They are no better than the executives of Enron clustered around the Spreadsheets that proved to them they were the bestest in the business.

Where has this mantra of #ibelieve come from? Why should I believe? The only reason seems to be because THEY tell me I must. They have no proof, no story that bears any scrutiny, and every time they release another of their pestilential reports the naked Emperor is revealed to be a bigger and bigger buffoon. I might just be a child in the crowd, but I will not stand here and be abused. Yewtree has no clothes – it is an idiot with a crown and courtiers who lie through their teeth in order to curry favour.

Of course what you say is true. But it’s not the arrogance and chutzpah of the establishment and their contempt for the rest of us that primarily concerns me. It’s the use to which they are putting that arrogance and chutzpah and contempt. It seems to me that what they are conniving at is no less than the abolition of the rule of law. Justice is henceforth to become a merely administrative operation to be carried out by ideologically conformist functionaries.

No. That has nothing to do with my legitimate, non-trolling, complaint that this blog constantly seeks to minimise the seriousness of Savile’s crimes, to mock the victims of abuse and to misrepresent the motives of complainants. The Op. Outreach Report describes some pretty unpleasant offences. The response here is either to make throwaway remarks aimed at minimising their seriousness and complaining that separate offences should not be counted separately or to argue that nothing has been proved and nothing happened. This is sanitising Savile. Cui bono?

Owen. Remember Karin Ward? The most famous of the “victims of Savile” when all this started? This is her, in her own words on a forum, as she met up with all her alma-mater online:

reply by the author on 25-Jun-2010 Thank you so much. I’m glad you didn’t feel I botched the job. Subsequent chapters are going to be more difficult because I was drugged and the memories are horribly vague. Fortunately, I have reconnected with ……. others who were at Duncroft with me. Between us, we are piecing together our memories of events. It is actually much worse than I recall!http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/well-meet-again.html

You are sanitising people who have no idea what the truth is.

Have you read Karin’s first book? It makes clear that her story is that her mother basically allowed/condoned/committed abuse on Karin from the day Karin was born, then allowed/condoned a series of step-fathers to brutalise her. She makes absolutely clear that at the time she wrote her book, that her mother was still alive. Where is the historical prosecution? Why did Peter Spindler not tell her he was “coming for her”? Why have the media not sought this evil woman out and exposed her to the cruel light of 21st Century Justice? She must be an awful lot more evil than silly old Brenda Leyland. Can you even make a guess as to why? I can.

If you read her book, the parts where she meets Jimmy are some of the happiest moments of her life. She goes to grand theatre shows and receptions and even gets to have a long coffee one evening with David Bowie. She collects hundreds of autographs of the rich and famous… It’s a great story. I’ll leave you to believe it if you will.

[no reply button at the correct level of the thread] Moor, I can’t confirm or question Karin Ward’s truthfulness. What you’ve quoted her as saying, suggests to me someone telling friends she felt she’d succeeded in doing something that was important to her and to friends she saw herself as representing. There’s nothing out of the ordinary in her saying that talking with old friends helped revive old memories. That’s my experience of meeting up with old friends and I would have thought it’s most people’s.

Karin Ward is just one individual. She isn’t the entire case against Savile, she’s the log that moved and collapsed the log jam that Savile’s bullying threats of disbelief, legal action and physical violence had held in place.

In the same way that you worked out an explanation for reports of Savile’s presence at Norman Lodge I’m sure you can satisfy yourself that the evidence of each and any witness will have some fatal chink in it. That’s your thing. But the overall case against Savile isn’t thrown over.

Meanwhile Anna’s witty jibes at the expense of the victims of abuse too often don’t stand up to close examination. If forced oral sex and vaginal touching are mere peccadilloes, comparable to kissing your aunt without permission, that’s a surprise to me. And if she thinks that separate offences aren’t usually treated as separate offences she should try arguing her way out of paying more than one parking fine.

This little world is your little world and I’m sure you won’t appreciate any more rants from me disturbing your peace, so I’ll leave it to you. For someone who’s uncomfortable with the idea that victims of abuse, plausible or otherwise, are the material of stand-up it’s not a congenial place.

@Owen I believe a stannd-up comedienne used to include as part of her routine, for quite some years, a story of how DLT once grabbed her tits in a corridor. Such is the biter bit.

Thankyou for your reasoned reply. I appreciate your points about that particular example. There is however a far more serious matter about Karin’s story. She was born in 1958 in a month that would in fact have made her 16 at the Clunk-Click show she attended. Indeed this seems to be one reason why she was allowed to attend the TV Studio (not the studio she was reported as being inside by the way). Now, leaving Karin herself aside, it is incontrovertible that the authorities knew exactly how old she was, so the question you might start asking yourself is why both media and police presented her as being 14. They were deceiving you. I’ll leave you to think about why THEY lied.

The problem you see is that every time they are caught in a lie, instead of fessing up, they just tell another lie and so finally any reasonable and informed person is left with unable to believe a word they say. Sureey Police say Savile visited Duncroft first in 1974. The Met are saying five crimes were committed there by Savile before 1974. I’ll leave you to think about that too.

One victim of abuse did indeed become stand-up material, material she herself wrote & performed: the TV-researcher whose name we are forbidden by law from mentioning, but whose claim against “disgraced DJ” Dave Lee Travis has led to him being described this week as “financially ruined”.

Her claim changed drastically over time, until in her ‘victim impact statement’ the court heard of the traumatising effect of the “assault” upon her. She was lying. You can read her words or listen to her speak about the matter (long before the court case, obviously!) and you should be left in no doubt whatsoever that what was desperately flung before the court – by the CPS after having failed to convict on the first occasion under different charges & using different alleged victims – should never have even been entertained by the justice system. It was a disgrace, and a man’s life has been wrecked.

I mention this case as it resulted from what began with Savile (which started with lies). It’s to say, if some liars hadn’t lied about a dead-man, it is doubtful that the lie against a living-man would have brought DLT to financial ruin. There’s a stand-up routine in here somewhere, but who’s laughing?

I don’t think the “troll land” epithet was justified, but you do seem determined to accept the accusers are ‘victims’; you believe their story as others previously did the tales of ‘victims who have now been shown to be FALSE accusers’. And this despite the lack of detail in the claims you mention – do we even know the age of the alleged victim of, say, the “forced oral sex” incident? Will her age turn out to be an elastic thing, as has happened before?

There is also a difference between making cutting remarks at “the expense of the victims of abuse” & at the expense of someone who is not believed by the writer to BE a victim of abuse. A really huge difference!

P.S. I’d still like to hear if your opinion of Simon “Pants On Fire” Danczuk has changed. An elected representative of the people, lying shamelessly and brazenly about related matters. Imagine what he might try and get away with if he could do so anonymously, eh!

Perhaps you are not ancient like me who, until I bored of it, was out every night in London pubs in the late 70s , early 80s getting pissed. I’m a fairly non-tactile person but I quickly learned that others, male & female are not. I’d like a quid for every grope I encountered on the way to the bar in a packed pub. I was basically sexually assaulted so many times I cannot even remember. How many times was I ‘raped’?.

8.4 “Jimmy Savile is recorded to have visited the hostel Norman Lodge on two occasions, and also to have visited pupils in the Intensive Care Unit on two occasions.” 8.5 “Jimmy Savile is recorded in log books to have taken pupils out, with a strong indication that they were unaccompanied by staff, on three occasions.” 8.6 “It is evident that Jimmy Savile was given significant access to the grounds and buildings, and it appears that this access was unrestricted and largely unsupervised”

The wording in the report is very ambiguous (‘it appears..’), but do those passages indicate that he did not take pupils out without it being recorded?

9.8 “Of the abuse that took place off site, thirteen offences took place inside vehicles brought to the school by Savile. The remaining two offences took place inside another vehicle”

15 offences in 3 car trips, one of them not even a Savilemobile? 5 offences per trip, how many pupils were in the vehicles? What was the other vehicle?

The deputy head of Norman Lodge which was run quite separately from Duncroft denies that Saville was ever at the hostel. She is still very much alive and kicking! Even if she had not been on duty when he supposedly visited she would have been told by the head, Miss Harris that he had been there!

Could this relate to the “Savile’s Travels” recording sessions. They were said to have been held with the young women resident in Norman Lodge. Looking at the Outreach report, they seem to imply they have written evidence of Jimmy’s two “visits” to Norman Lodge. It would seem reasonable that when the young women were authorised to take part in the recordings which were being done elsewhere in the grounds (in Jimmy’s ‘vehicle’?) the “record-keeper” used the visitors book as a short-hand to log where the girls had been at the particular times noted, should anyone have asked the question at a later date.

This is seriously disturbing stuff, even for those who have followed Anna’s blog for a long time. The cavalier attitude of the police to actually investigating and finding out the truth is utterly shocking. Is nothing to be said or done about the women who have provably lied?

Ah, but you must remember that, according to the police and CPS, the victims/survivors are so traumatised by what happened to them that they can easily get things like dates wrong (by anything up to 10 years it seems) but that doesn’t mean that they are lying – just mistaken/misunderstood/etc etc …. (and don’t mention the compensation of course)

And wasn’t Rolf Harris banged up similarly ?. An incident that happened at a concert in a hall which no-one in the town can remember, a concert of which no local newspaper carries a report of (despite Rolf being a huge star at the time), in front of 100s of locals while Rolf was on a stage in front of the audience with his band and crew behind him. And alarmingly while Australian newspaper reports carry tales of Rolf actually being in his home city of Perth watching the Moon Landing on TV!

The one your referring to I think is the Leigh Park estate in Portsmouth. No one seems to remember him visiting, which would have been quite a big thing. It’s a council estate and many of the residents would live there from cradle to grave—someone should remember

Lizzie Cornish has done a lot of work on the Leigh Park claim, far more investigation than the police have. She hasn’t just combed the archives but also talked to anybody who might remember Rolf’s appearance there. So far she’s found not one single bit of evidence that Rolf Harris was ever there, at any time. This is in complete contrast to the police investigation, which doesn’t appear to have been any sort of investigation at all. As well as never verifying that Harris had performed at Leigh Park, they didn’t talk to anybody – local residents, hall staff, Harris’s backing band etc – who, if the claim that Harris had groped a young girl in full view of a crowd was in any way true, would have been witnesses for the prosecution.

I doubt that Owen is still reading this, but just in case he is – no, we’re not “laughing at” real abuse victims. All of us accept that child abuse does exist and that there are evil people who do awful things to children. We are NOT deniers. What we’re doing here is pointing out the many lies that are being told in these historic abuse cases. We’re sticking up for truth and justice. And doing that includes sticking up for justice for the victims of abuse who, thanks to the liars who make false allegations, will find it much harder in the future to be believed.

On 14th June 2015 there was an article in the Daily Mirror featuring the Leigh Park complainant. The article stated that the event at which she had allegedly been assaulted was a JUNIOR DISCO. The Sydney Morning Herald (though, it seems, not the British press) had mentioned previously that the alleged assault had happened ‘on a chilly Saturday morning’. That the event was a junior disco had not been mentioned before, to my knowledge, and one has to ask why, as it makes it even more unlikely that the perpetrator – if there ever was one – was Rolf Harris. The complainant WOULD have known when she appeared at the trial that the event was a junior disco.

It is inconceivable that Rolf’s agent would have booked him, at what was arguably the peak of his career, to appear at a junior disco at a community centre on a council estate. According to the complainant, the children had brought autograph books, meaning that there would have been prior knowledge of his visit – and THAT would have generated a flurry of activity where the local papers were concerned. Yet, as we all know, a search of several years’ worth of newspapers turned up nothing.

Now, back to the agent and the supposed booking. Rolf Harris’s fee for appearing (with his band and entourage, of course) would have been out of the reach of a community centre more accustomed to organising events like whist drives. Leigh Park, back in 1969, was a deprived place with serious social problems (maybe it still is). I know this because I took the trouble to read through hard copies of The News, Portsmouth, covering several weeks either side of the time of the complainant’s eighth birthday (in October 1969), which is one of the two dates when the alleged assault happened. Rolf Harris was in Australia for several weeks around the time of the moon landing, and this can be verified, so it certainly didn’t happen then. Those many newspapers that I searched carried no mention of Rolf Harris at all.

So, back to the community centre. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Leigh Park Community Centre had scraped their pennies together and decided that they could afford to have Rolf Harris appear there. The most likely scenario is that he would have done a show on a Saturday night. They would not have forked out a fortune to have him appear at a Saturday morning junior disco! However, the hall there holds only 150 people, which would have meant that the tickets would have been very expensive if the hall were to break even, let alone make a profit. The high cost of the tickets would have put them way out of the reach of the people on the estate, who would have complained to the local paper in droves, I would imagine.

But they didn’t. Because there were no tickets. And no Rolf.

When is someone who is in a position to get things done going to do something?

Although the police had found no newspaper or council records or local memory of Rolf Harris taking time out from his high profile theatrical venues and TV shows to appear alone at a local community centre (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-2637655/No-proof-Harris-girls-groped.html), the accuser made a claim of intimate groping at 7 or 8 that chimed with the main accuser’s claim of being fondled on his lap and intimately groped outside the showers at 13 and the Australian accuser’s claim of being fondled on his lap and intimately groped outside the toilets at 14. Neaty neaty matchy matchy. Guilty, innit.

I’ve always thought these Duncroft allegations were bollocks. In those days there was always a woman – a matron or something – in charge of girls. Male prison officers did not look after women. All these institutions had oversights like boards of governors, visitors and so on, and it is not true that there was more sexual abuse in the 1960s and 70s, rather women were made of stronger stuff. A guy who came on to a woman or girl too strong would be put in his place or have his face slapped. Nowadays these silly bitches wait for three months then accuse him of sexual harassment or worse. Then there is the abuse industry, counselling and all that stuff. Look at what is happening on American campuses, it’s all balls, all of it, as if Savile could just walk into a school uninvited, unannounced and grope any girl or member of staff by the tit. The BBC got it right the first time with that tribute programme.

This report is just paint by numbers stuff. There’s no evaluation of any kind here. I could have written it and I’ve never gone near Duncroft or met any of the people concerned. I do sympathise with anyone who got abused by Savile but something’s not quite right here. Grooming is a subtle process. A groomer can’t just walk into a ‘dining room’ and start touching people and get away with it because ‘they’re so powerful’, especially not in somewhere like a girl’s approved school with loads of (mainly female) staff around, this wasn’t a party where everyone was drunk. It just wouldn’t be allowed to happen so many times. Ok, some men (and a smaller number of women) were very inappropriate in the 1970s and 1980s (I was there). This didn’t mean people could just carry out serious child abuse like rape or assault by penetration (as it is now) on a vast scale with no-one reporting it to anyone. We hear a lot of victim’s accounts that when they told their parents but there stories were dismissed. Ok, you get a few parents like that. But a very large percentage who say Savile abused them seems top have happened to have totally neglectful parents…. Personally I think three things are the case. Savile was a dirty old man. He probably disgusted a lot of people with his leering and touching and this has ballooned into him becoming the equivalent of Norman Brady. The Conservative Party were gunning for the BBC and the Savile case was a good way of undermining it. We’re in the middle of a very long moral panic about changing sexual mores and the increasing sexual freedom of women (dating from at least the 1950s). Expect more witch-hunts as a result!

Even among these comments, it seems that people are willing to believe that Savile did commit acts of sexual abuse. Please, can anyone, in words of one syllable, tell me of any case where this has been proved beyond any doubt with real supporting evidence?

Most seem to merge into one amophous lump of unliklihood, but there are some that seem to be little more than a too tight arm around the waist, a stranying hand on the bum, or too much tongue for a kiss from a stranger. These have a bit more credibility, simply because such behaviour wasn’t unique to Savile at the time by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, we do know of instances where one would expect Savile – if he was the uncontrollable monster he is being presented as – couldn’t have failed to take advantage, yet he apparently behaved like a perfect gentleman.

That’s the difficulty, or beauty – depending on your point of view, of such allegations. Generally abuse takes place out of view where only the abuser(s) and victim are present. It is one persons word against another. That is where the #IBeleiveHer meme stems from. There are many victims who have been abused and not believed. There are many people who have been falsely accused. There are many cases that fall in between. There is often no ‘evidence’ to be had.

So it is much easier to make an allegation of abuse and be believed (irrespective of the truth) than it used to be and in cases where abuse has taken place that has to be a good thing doesn’t it? Well only if it serves the cause of Justice. As others have more eloquently said the Savile case is about far more than actual abuse and more about Justice. We cannot as a society allow those in power to enact laws that allow people to be convicted on allegation alone. That is the quick route to oppression.

Don’t you mean Norman Bates? We know who is Master Bates, and his schoolma’m Miss Ducks. This has become a staple of these cases – Rolf Harris is meant to have done it; DLT in a hospital with his wife by his side and the cameras on him; and in the US, Bill Cosby who met a string of women suffering from headaches etc, the ideal pretext for him to offer them a pill and wake up in his bed naked, confused about the night before, which they didn’t report for a decade or more. And for the most part the public laps it up.

Anna, we have had our disagreements, strong disagreements, and let me say that I admire you, and your writing, your tenacity, and your courage in the face of death. I just cannot understand why you would wish for your legacy to be linked to Saville. I cannot believe that all those people are making stuff up. I cannot, not, not….. If you saw no evidence of it , that’s okay, but it’s a massive call to say that the guy is totally innocent, just because you didn’t witness it, despite being in the same school.

The fact is, that the man is dead. If he is totally innocent that is a shame, but he doesn’t know a thing about it. He has no immediate, surviving family, so no one is directly impacted. I still maintain that all the hordes coming forward are probably telling the truth, maybe not for the right reason, but that isn’t really the issue.

Whether we should pursue historic crimes which obviously cannot be forensically proved is one thing. Whether we should make pronouncements about guilt or innocence, is another.

@Jim That must be one of the most wilfully ignorant comments I have ever read on here. It must also be one of the nastiest. A shame it’s not a real bar in here. I’d like to kick your fucking head in. The bill for damages would be worth every penny.

” I just cannot understand why you would wish for your legacy to be linked to Saville.”

If my legacy is to be linked to a fight for ancient rights of fair trial, truth and justice – I certainly shan’t be crying into my soup – I’ll be damn proud.

No one is directly impacted? You have to be joking.

Shall I make an allegation against you? Shall we find out how directly impacted you are when I, a poor vulnerable girl from a children’s home (sound the violins someone)claim that ‘Jim’ (can’t remember his second name, its the stress you know) abused me (no, of course I can’t remember exactly where or when) but he did (‘oh yes he did’, cry the internet hordes, ‘we can feel it in our bones’) (anyway, we read somewhere on the internet that Jim was a nasty piece of work, so that proves it) and we’ll see how ‘directly impacted’ you are in your prison cell.

“but it’s a massive call to say that the guy is totally innocent, just because you didn’t witness it, despite being in the same school.”

It’s such a massive call – that guess what – I’ve never said it!

What I have said, and have now been proved right about – is that five allegations regarding Savile at Duncroft were blatant lies – and that therefore the others shouldn’t be taken on ‘trust’ or ‘gut instinct’ but should be openly investigated.

You think this is about Savile? And since he’s dead, it doesn’t matter anyway? What a fool you are Sir.

“I was completely aware of the allegations. His father’s now ex wife, Lisa, a mentally ill woman with a history of false reporting, was doing it to punish his father. It turns out the judge in the divorce had already dismissed her claims against her husband of sexually abusing the chihuahuas. Now she was going after Greg to hurt his father. She had told a friend that if she “didn’t get the house, the boat and the dogs in the divorce she would destroy” his father’s life by claiming that he had raped her.”

I see from the Charity Commission website that the Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust, registered in 1981, for the “relief of sickness by supporting charitable work of Stoke Mandeville Hospital”, was removed/ceased to exist in November 2013, while the income of the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust almost doubled from 2010 to 2011, rose again from 2011 to 2012, fell from 2012 to 2013, and was halved from 2013 to 2014, falling to below the level in 2010.

I think the Charitable Trust doubled because a large sum that had been granted to a Leeds Hospital was returned by that body for fear they should be perceived as taking the money from the worst sexual predator in British History, even though it was never Jimmy’s money in the first place. I did hear a whisper that now the dust has settled a little, that same body is now asking if can they have the money back again, pretty please. I think the only reason that Trust is still existing is because of their fight to gain the £3M that they would have received back in 2011 had a certain not-so-young woman turned up claiming to be Jimmy’s closest kin – accompanied by a Property Lawyer of all things.http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/just-like-sister-ray-said.html

“no one is directly impacted” nothing is further from the truth everyone is potentially impacted when police choose to believe the victim regardless of lack of evidence or even in spite of evidence which points to allegations being false. Anyone could be the target of such a malicious allegation.

I am hugely grateful to Anna for her tireless often thankless efforts in examining the Savile fiasco, It has given me huge comfort over the last couple of years when my husband was falsely accused, a case that would never have progressed as it did if the savilisation of the justice system hadn’t occurred.

I have first hand experience of police actually refusing to look at evidence that would show that allegations were fabricated, so intent are they in bringing a prosecution even if it’s destined to fail !This is happening to the man on the street not just high profile figures, everyone should be concerned the way justice is being diminished.

Thank you Anna for persisting with this , I think you are just amazing.

I listened to a “victim” of Janner this morning on Radio 5 Live. It may be wrong to make assumptions, but I had the unnerving feeling it was all rubbish. Stories of being the only 2 people allowed to use an incredibly plush room in a Working Mens’ Claub and so forth. It just didn’t sound right. And, of course not one jot of corroboration: at each turn the question about other witnesses and so forth was given an “ah, but unfortunately” he’s moved away, he’s not alive, I can’t find this or that… Didn’t believe a word of it, actually

(Startled cough) Incredibly plush? In a 1970’s – 80’s working Men’s club? As a one time member and denizen of many such establishments, I’ve yet to come across any such place. Unless someone is being very generous with their definition of ‘plush’. (Eee, it were dead plush, they ‘ad real curtains, and the carpet were genuwine nylon) As far as the ‘only two people’ I can actually believe that. Well them and the Club Steward, and the managing committee. Most clubs had private meeting rooms where the in crowd of local dignitaries and various committee members would have their meetings while the rest of us plebs haunted the bar.

Off Topic – Anna, you seem very feisty today. I really, really hope you feel well/better to go with it and that your health does not further deteriorate.

These occasional posts by yourself really lift my blog diet. Petunia’s good (psst – a *touch* verbose?), but it’s not the same. Are you well enough to write another personal update – house renovation perhaps?

I actually met Janner’s assistant around this time, and he commented on it.

Now more to the point, why don’t you and Moor Larkin make a video about Savile for YouTube taking apart the allegations? You’d probably get a lot of views, and if you juxtaposed the reports with the reality you might wake a few people up.

I mentioned this en passant in my Rolf Harris video but you two need to do a dedicated job.

Rethink it! You’ve put together a great website, and turning its contents into a video would be laborious but technically easy. There are kids of 8 or 9 scripting and making quite long films with minimal or not adult assistance.

I think he did win an award for something. I was runner up in the world speed reading championship, and as a chess player I beat 3 world champions and drew with a 4th. Both those claims are true, but they sound a great deal more impressive than they actually are. I’ve watched two of Maloney’s “films” and have reviewed them on IMDb:

Job for Jon Ronson? Not very likely Moor, I’m afraid. Ronson’s been saying on Twitter (re Janner) that David Icke, despite being a raving tin-foil hatter, was at least right about the “paedophile elite”. Ronson’s a decent bloke – I’d just finished listening to him reading his book “The Psychopath Test” and he’s pretty good at nailing nutters in that. So I’m disappointed in him now. Adam Curtis – going by what I’ve seen of his stuff (which isn’t all of it) I think he’d be a believer in the “paedophile elite” as well. But I could be wrong. Nick Broomfield – don’t really think so somehow. Too lightweight. No, what’s needed is a proper investigative reporting job, something like John Sweeney’s reports into Scientology. But it’s such a big, complex subject, with all those timelines and reports; you’d need a whole team of reporters, or maybe John Sweeney teamed up with David Rose.

Mister Larkin, I meant no offence but what is written on this blog is in direct contradiction to the main stream media reports. It’s very interesting to note how even polite disagreement provokes such rage.

@Jim Virtual rage Mr. Jim. I’ve yet to meet anyone in the real world who is not a better puncher than me. Your apology to the landlady means Imore inclined now to buy you that beer I was promising Owen. Down the hatch! As Sweeney Tood the butcher of Fleet Street would say…

Regarding BeBe Roberts and her false story that is in The Mail online version. It appeared with accounts by 2 others recalling their encounters with Jimmy Saville, 3 reporters were credited for the article.

I phoned a female reporter who was one of three credited with the story, she had left a message and her direct line phone number on one of social media forum used by BeBe Roberts and other Duncroftonians.

Being polite I let her know how I obtained her number, initially she denied any knowledge of the forum. Later she remembered (or Icke would say “admitted”) she had been on the forum and left the message. I queried the story pointing out contemporaries of Ms Roberts said Saville had not been there while they were there and asked how the story was verified. The reporter said they didn’t have time to check and then distance herself from BeBe Roberts story by saying it was their northern reporter (one of the three credited) who interviewed BeBe Roberts.

Subsequent to my phone call the layout of the article online was changed, it was broking up into 3 parts with the name of an individual reporter above each part.

The female reporter I spoke to was the one who travelled all the way to North Wales, I guess the paper’s northern reporter was busy.

Here was a reporter who could not remember what she had done a few days previously off to ask someone in their 90’s to remember a non event from 50 years earlier.

Incidentally, as recently as two months ago, Ms Roberts confirmed by e-mail that she was ‘sticking to her story’ – a story that has now been confirmed as unadulterated bollocks…not unlike wot Ms Raccoon said two years ago – but who am I to judge with my own fair eyes?

I might be wrong here but it seems quite plausible that Savile committed offences at the rate of one new victim for every eight hours he was at Duncroft and a “new offence” every four hours? I may be misremembering but I seem to recall he took three girls in a car with him sometimes and as a consequence this would result in three new victims and several almost simultaneous offences?? If part of the attraction of Duncroft was the vulnerable residents one would expect him to offend at a high rate whilst there surely? I myself was groomed as a child and when asked to relate the dates of the incidents as an adult I was very vague and had a time-range of four years in my mind because I was a child myself at the time and it was forty years ago. However, a magazine (dated) refers to the incident where I was first targeted. If as an interviewed victim I had been asked “What date did you first meet the paedophile and he asked you for your home address?” I could have easily given an incorrect date. Would you then say that this made me a false accuser who was deliberately falsifying an accusation because it could be proven he had not been present in my home town in that year? I can assure you he did ask for my address and then turned up unannounced at my home (my parents can verify this). External sources can verify the date. I can verify the nature of the event. Have I misunderstood your argument? Are you saying the Duncroft girls were present when Savile was there but got the dates of the offences wrong or are you saying they were never at Duncroft? Is it possible they gave the wrong year of the alleged offences?

First quetion is. How old were you in years. The term “child” has become completely bastardised by the savile process and has become worthless in human reality terms. Those claiming victimhood at Duncroft were all between 14 and 17 at the time of the events. So, is that how old you were at the time of your events? Four years seems a fairly long time to be “out” to be honest, since you must surely have known how old you were and then been able to figure th years back. I once had a flasback memory of an event vaguely sexual and I was able to work back that it must have happened when I was between 11 and 12; it took me about ten minutes to do the arithmetic from the thngs I remembered about the event.

I know now that I was 11 by seeing the event at which I had met the paedophile reported in a magazine. But I first heard he had been convicted as a paedophile some 35 years later. At that point I could very easily recall the man, the incident, the visit to my parents house, the letters he sent but I would have said I was any age between 9 and 13. I can recall the incident as being in the music room of the school I attended (which was for girls aged 5-18) and that the music room was in the primary school but I couldn’t recall whether I was of primary school age at the time or if the event (which I also recalled as being a non-school day) just happened to be held in that room because it was convenient and fitted the occasion. I could even tell you what I was wearing (because the other girls wore jeans and I had a skirt on and I remember sitting cross legged with some awkwardness) but I still couldn’t tell you if I was 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13. I remember the name of the other girl whose address he took, I remember the cake we ate, I remember the day he turned up at my parents, the weather, even the very words he said (“I’ve got a snake in my car. Would you like to see it? – it was a calculator “See, it’s an adder!”) but I couldn’t tell you how old I was. I remember the details as they contextually involved me but a date has no contextual significance and, 35 years later, I couldn’t have recalled it. All I’m saying is that it would have been possible to say I was lying about the entire scenario if you could prove that the paedophile had not been in my home town when I was 9, 10, 12 or 13. If I had asserted I was 13 then it would be possible to say ” the cake, the party, the friend, the visit, the gift/letters (which I didn’t keep) are all made up by her. She is lying because this could not have happened when she was 13 because he was never there”. Yet I know the incident happened and because external witnesses and articles record the initial party and meetings my veracity is upheld. Now some of Savile’s victims do not have this external verification. Is it possible that we brand women who were child-victims as “liars” because, despite the fact the event did happen, they place it at a time at which the accused could not have committed an offence? Or have I got it completely wrong: did the women concerned never, ever attend Duncroft and hence could not possibly have ever met Savile there?

Ok. Now I see it. So you are saying Bebe Roberts NEVER saw Savile at Duncroft because he never visited when she was there aged between 14 and 16? And that rather than being incorrect by say, 4 years she was out by 7 years? And that the other four girls you mention were her contemporaries and hence could never have met Savile there?

Now that seems odd. What is the chronology of this lady’s revelations? I assumed she did attend Duncroft? When did she first speak of Saville and what exactly did she say?

Ok. I’ve read it. Now to act as devil’s advocate. Scenario 1) I once saw Jimmy Savile when I was working backstage for One Of The Biggest Bands On Earth. He was wearing what at best were ‘tasteless’ and at worst ‘obscene’ silver shorts and sitting ‘legs akimbo’ to use a nice phrase for crotch conspicuously exposed on a piece of stage equipment. I can assure you if it had been anyone unknown and not ‘recognised’ as Savile was, someone would have politely but firmly told him he was a safety hazard and in our way. He had no backstage pass. I can assure you he did not attack me in any way and that I gave him no opportunity because A I was working and B he looked sleazy and old and as a 20-year-old I felt pity for him as a has-been. So let us postulate I had been attacked by him (which I assert again for clarity I was not) at age 20. Let us assume too that I was vulnerable (which again I assert for clarity that I am not). Let us consider the possibility that this vulnerability was comprised of abusive home background coupled with constantly moving residence and carers, muddled with drink administered by paedophiles and groomed to a state of constant vulnerability. (Again, not the case for me. I postulate this to elicit audience empathy for victims of paedophilia) Imagine I had been repeatedly abused by several paedophiles starting with the paedophile I met at age 11 (again I stress I wasnt) Is it possible that under these circumstances, circumstances common for vulnerable victims of abuse, that a victim could transpose the date and place of her attack? I contend the repeated trauma of multiple attacks would produce a defence mechanism of denial and a focus only on the physical nature of the attack and the attacker, particularly memorable if he was ‘famous’. If I as a cogent, sober, emotionally-stable child who was not attacked repeatedly and had a stable home with vigilant parents can be unsure of a date to the tune of four years then surely truely vulnerable women with conditioning aimed at confusing them into what was morally right or wrong might simply be able to remember the attacker and the attack and no other salient details? I am simply acting as Devil’ advocate here – is that possible? Quite open to considering it is not possible but arguments should be reasoned from the position of a vulnerable girl/woman with other mitigating factors affecting her general appearance of veracity.

Too much hypothesise for me – the only reason Savile has ever been under discussion here is to publicise actual facts that the main stream media prefer to keep under wraps, in order that people can make a balanced assessment of what appears in the media.

I see. If I stripped away the hypotheses I think I would be saying “could they have been attacked by Savile but in another place at another time?”

I think I have mistaken some of the argument. I thought some people might believe he was not a paedophile. Am I correct in saying you “agree he is a paedophile but think some of the media reports are inaccurate or inconsistent”?

I don’t just ‘think’, but am absolutely positive that most of the media stories are inaccurate or inconsistent. Ipso, anyone trying to determine or vouching an opinion, as to whether he was or he wasn’t, is wasting their time.

Now I understand. Thank you for clarifying. I was under the mistaken impression you were supporting Savile and Rolf Harris as innocent but in fact you were simply and clearly distinguishing between those facts which are true and those that you personally know cannot be true. In reading the comments of less objective posters I became confused. I suppose the true arena to determine guilt is a court of law and once someone is convicted we should make our protests through the correct channels as a miscarriage of justice. Ironically your criticisms of ‘trial by media’ are just as true of “innocent by Internet”: I see your position is consistent now but other posters are the equivalent of the “met officer on the jury” – they may be correct but we cannot apportion any veracity to an anonymous poster who claims Rolf Harris is innocent or that Jimmy Savile was a member of an elite cult. Just as a met officer is biased, a poster here might have an ulterior motive. Paradoxically any member of Rolf Harris’s family or business connection could be the inverse of his own supposed “slimy little woodworms”. They want to get their hands back into the “dough” of his creation and just as the media creates a forum for false accusations so the Internet does the same for his “false supporters”. As his fortune slips away they are motivated to post false statements of innocence and to play-up some consistencies that work in their favour. Thank you for the enlightening forum. I certainly have learnt something. “Don’t believe everything in the papers and don’t believe everything you read on the Internet”!

“Don’t believe everything in the papers and don’t believe everything you read on the Internet”!

If only everybody could take that on board, the world would be a better place.

Interesting that you were under the impression that I was supporting Savile or Harris as innocent – I keep reading that this ‘is Anna Raccoon’s belief’, or that ‘Anna Raccoon supports paedophilia’, and can never figure out where this comes from – not from anything I have ever written, of that I am sure.

* I suppose the true arena to determine guilt is a court of law and once someone is convicted we should make our protests through the correct channels as a miscarriage of justice. * @Annie Jimmy Savile was never in a court of law. What correct channels are there for him, and his family?

And as far as the money-grubbers go, the only folk after his money are the self-labelled victims. His personal money was willed to a Charitable Trust, so there were no personal motivations of the sort you suggest for his family to try and retain it. Indeed, quite the opposite, one of his extended family who he had never met until she was 40, was said to be due to be prosecuted for her bogus claims, but so far as can be seen the CPS declined to prosecute (on the basis it would rather spoil the narrative presumably).

So far as I can see, all the lies are told on one side of the media/legal/victim arguments, and it was the biggest lie of all that prompted the landlady here to blog about the subject at all. As it happens, I have just done another blogpost in that connection, which exemplifies the manner of the behaviour of both lying victims and a corrupt mass media. I’d be interested in your rationalisations about this evidence.http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/deadline.html

Well of course the Met are hoist by their own petard – if a ‘victim’ says she was abused at Duncroft in 1688 by Savile #theybelieveher even when they know he wasn’t even born for another 300 odd years…the fact that she wasn’t born yet wouldn’t ruffle any feathers either. Operation Outreach does not regard accounts provided by Duncroft victims as unproven allegations…